MoreRSS

site iconThe New YorkerModify

The full text is output by feedx. A weekly magazine since 1925, blends insightful journalism, witty cartoons, and literary fiction into a cultural landmark.
Please copy the RSS to your reader, or quickly subscribe to:

Inoreader Feedly Follow Feedbin Local Reader

Rss preview of Blog of The New Yorker

The Best Films of 2025

2025-12-05 20:06:02

2025-12-05T11:00:00.000Z

Our film critics watch a lot of movies in a year. By December, their viewing slates span international standouts, festival favorites, studio blockbusters, and plenty more in between. Below, Justin Chang and Richard Brody take us through the year in film and rank the best offerings, two different ways.


A Brilliant Year for Movies and a Terrible One for Almost Everything Else

JUSTIN CHANG

One of the most emotionally overwhelming scenes in any new movie this year takes place at a New Year’s Eve party. Partway through Julia Loktev’s enthralling documentary, “My Undesirable Friends: Part I—Last Air in Moscow,” we find ourselves at a gathering of several Russian independent journalists, toasting the end of a truly hellish 2021 (“To a new year without Putin!”). They huddle around a TV and watch a compilation of video clips from various friends and fellow-travellers (journalists, activists, human-rights workers, election watchdogs, and more), who unleash a welcome flood of encouraging messages: “It wasn’t an easy year”; “We expected it to be bad, but it turned out even worse”; “Hell is breaking loose”; “But it’s O.K., somehow we survived”; “The solidarity of young people amazes me”; “Remember, any catastrophe can be turned into a step forward”; “Everything changes. We have to remember that it changes thanks to us”; “Friends, breathe deeper. Reboot yourselves”; “Evil is not eternal, and truth will surely win.”

2022, of course, does not turn out to be a year without Putin. In February, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will begin, forcing Loktev’s journalist-subjects, who have already been stigmatized by the government for doing their jobs, to flee the country altogether—a crisis that registers onscreen with an almost unbearable suspense. Movies have a curious ability to not only build and amplify tension but also to preserve it for future viewings. Nearly four years of war have passed since that defiantly hopeful New Year’s Eve, and yet, to watch Loktev’s film at this moment is to feel its urgency as if it had been filmed yesterday—and to be warmed by the collective spirit behind those heartfelt messages of strength and courage, even if the times have only gotten darker since they were spoken. Needless to say, those messages are hardly applicable to the Russian opposition movement alone. For any American feeling benumbed into hopelessness by the first year of the second Trump Administration—including its ongoing assaults on the practitioners and, indeed, the very notion of a free press—the time to watch and take heart from this brave, brilliant movie is surely now.

Several of the films on my best-of-the-year list, including “Last Air in Moscow,” are fundamentally timeless expressions and explorations of solidarity. They take us inside authoritarian crackdowns, debate the ways and means of dissidence, and weigh the physical and ethical costs of retributive violence. Jafar Panahi’s “It Was Just an Accident,” a searing moral thriller about a group of Iranian former political prisoners who are granted a once-in-a-lifetime chance to avenge themselves, felt indelibly in conversation with Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another,” about an underground revolutionary movement in tatters, trying to survive long enough to fight and sometimes kill another day. In both these films—and also in Kleber Mendonça Filho’s “The Secret Agent,” in which the war for Brazil’s political soul, then and now, is also shown to be one battle after another—the characters cannot outrun the wounds, scars, and fatal missteps of the past. They must confront them head on, and not only for themselves but for the future generations who will inherit and, perhaps, ameliorate their struggles.

Questions of moral and political legacy crept up even in the context of a crackerjack entertainment like “Wake Up Dead Man,” the latest “Knives Out” mystery from the director and screenwriter Rian Johnson. This one takes place in and around a Catholic parish in upstate New York, and what’s bracing about the movie is the way it deploys the usual panoply of detective-story conventions—and the crucial character of an earnest priest (Josh O’Connor), making a radical argument for the eternal power and relevance of Christ’s love—to mount an ingenious reclamation of Christianity from the political right. If you want to gauge the full measure of O’Connor’s range as an actor, do seek out his very different performance in Kelly Reichardt’s “The Mastermind,” in which he plays a harebrained thief with no convictions to speak of. Reichardt’s film, pointedly set against the Vietnam War protests of 1970, delivers its own off-center ode to political solidarity; in the margins of her story, Reichardt quietly reveals the grim consequences of standing for no one and nothing besides one’s own interests.

More than once, 2025 has struck me as a brilliant, dazzling year for movies and a terrible one for damn near everything else. Perhaps my working life as a critic has conditioned me into such a response; the movies have long been not just my cultural sustenance but also a personal wellspring of sanity. I don’t know how to reconcile my unfashionable optimism about the state of the medium—my sense that I saw more good and even great movies this year, from all over the world, than I have in any year since the pandemic—with the dismal box-office reports, the rumors of impending studio mergers, and various other doomsday laments that have dominated Hollywood headlines. As we prepare to ring in a new year of moviegoing, the best encouragement I can offer is to shrug and note that art finds a way.

Solidarity being the central though hardly the only theme, I have, in continuation of a long-standing personal tradition, ranked my favorite films of the year as a series of annotated pairings, plus one trio. In the interest of spreading the wealth and honoring the spirit of 2025, my list comprises twenty-five films, plus a handful of honorable mentions.

1. “Sirāt” and 2. “One Battle After Another”

Figure stands in dark wearing a sweatshirt with hood pulled up.
Leonardo DiCaprio in “One Battle After Another.”Photograph courtesy Warner Bros. / Everett

The two best movies I saw this year both unfold under a cloud of doomy portent: as the world burns, a father searches for his missing daughter across a vast and unyielding landscape. In Oliver Laxe’s visually and sonically overwhelming survival thriller, “Sirāt,” the father is played by Sergi López, and the journey he embarks upon, in the improbable company of several desert ravers, is one of unfathomable shock and tragedy. But the movie isn’t a cheaply cynical or nihilistic experience; its gravest horrors spring from a complex understanding of how human compassion persists in a universe that is fundamentally opposed to its existence. Improbable acts of kindness and solidarity also power Paul Thomas Anderson’s political chase thriller “One Battle After Another,” which laughs impudently—and entertains generously—in the face of a police-state nightmare overseen by white-supremacist grotesques. The dad is played by Leonardo DiCaprio, doing his best and, not coincidentally, funniest work since “The Wolf of Wall Street” (2013).

3. “Caught by the Tides” and 4. “Resurrection”

Two Chinese filmmakers, one a middle-aged master and the other a prodigious young upstart, gave us the two most formally audacious features of the year. In “Caught by the Tides,” Jia Zhangke weaves two decades’ worth of footage from his personal archive—some of it cleverly repurposed, some of it strikingly new—into an emotionally turbulent romantic drama of missed connections, thwarted longings, and unexpected beginnings. In “Resurrection,” the romance is with the cinema itself: Bi Gan draws us into a surreal labyrinth of stories, genres, and styles, with a dexterous and imaginative potted history of the medium playing out in the shadows. Both filmmakers, notably, salute the silent era: Bi through witty homages to F. W. Murnau and the Lumière brothers, Jia by coaxing forth an aching, wordless performance from his longtime collaborator Zhao Tao. In the century-old moment of cinema’s birth, these artists see the possibility of a grand reawakening.

5. “My Undesirable Friends: Part I—Last Air in Moscow” and 6. “The Secret Agent”

The brave independent journalists we meet in Julia Loktev’s extraordinarily tenacious documentary “My Undesirable Friends: Part I—Last Air in Moscow” have been classified as “foreign agents” by Vladimir Putin’s regime—a designation that makes it all the harder for them to do their jobs, especially in the awful months leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In “The Secret Agent,” Kleber Mendonça Filho’s emotionally overflowing chronicle of life under Brazil’s military dictatorship, the protagonist (Wagner Moura, in the year’s most magnetic star turn) is not a secret agent at all, but he is forced to behave like one simply in order to survive. Patience is the name of the game here, for the characters we meet and the filmmakers behind the camera: Mendonça’s film ranges far and wide, so justly taken with the richness of its own human canvas that it’s in no hurry to piece its story together. Loktev’s epic, unfolding in five equally gripping parts, is the work of a filmmaker fearlessly following an unpredictable yarn wherever it takes her. (She’s still following it even now; what happens next will be revealed in “My Undesirable Friends: Part II—Exile.”)

7. “Sound of Falling,” 8. “April,” and 9. “On Becoming a Guinea Fowl”

The abuse and suppression of women’s bodies, a constant the world over, takes especially insidious root in a northern German farmstead, the setting of Mascha Schilinski’s “Sound of Falling”; a rural stretch of eastern Georgia, where Dea Kulumbegashvili’s “April” unfolds; and a middle-class Zambian suburb, in Rungano Nyoni’s “On Becoming a Guinea Fowl.” All three of these films are second features, directed with startling assurance and a willingness to shatter conventional boundaries of narrative time and space—to create formal ruptures and patterns born of the women’s shared experiences of trauma. In “Sound of Falling,” the camera could well be wielded by ghosts, haunting the same set of rooms across generations. In “April,” a mysteriously suffering creature wanders a gloomy landscape, bearing burdens that make it all but impossible for her to breathe. And, on a more hopeful note, in “On Becoming a Guinea Fowl,” a woman is symbolically transfigured into the bird of the film’s title, a creature known for its ruthlessly protective instincts.

10. “It Was Just an Accident” and 11. “Cloud”

The two purest thrillers of the year both propose that vigilantism, even if it isn’t the answer, can be wielded in service of important questions. In Jafar Panahi’s “It Was Just an Accident,” winner of the Palme d’Or at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, a group of former prisoners seek retribution against the man who tortured them behind bars—a scenario loosely yet forcefully informed by Panahi’s own past detention by the Iranian government, and infused with an anger so righteously intense that it could burn a hole in the screen. (Earlier this week, Panahi, who has been in the U.S. promoting the film, was sentenced in absentia by a court in Tehran to a year in prison and given a two-year travel ban.) In Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s “Cloud,” several armed and disgruntled men team up online to eliminate a common nemesis; it’s a chilling study in what life on the internet has wrought, from cutthroat business practices to recreational murder. Both films are built around the same disquieting takeaway: revenge is a dish best served not just cold but with as little hesitation as possible.

12. “Blue Moon” and 13. “Who by Fire”

Leaving aside their popular song-inspired titles, “Blue Moon,” Richard Linklater’s lovingly acerbic portrait of the lyricist Lorenz Hart (an outstanding Ethan Hawke), and “Who by Fire,” Philippe Lesage’s blistering drama about a group vacation from hell, are the year’s two most incisively detailed portraits of the fraught and complicated relationships that can develop between artists. In each film, two men who were once close friends and creative partners have an awkwardly passive-aggressive reunion, awakening inextricably bound feelings of affection, resentment, competitiveness, and begrudging camaraderie. And as the aftermath plays out, a new generation of aspiring artists is quietly watching—and learning.

14. “Marty Supreme” and 15. “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You”

Young male figure wearing dark clothes holds a ping pong paddle and points towards the camera
Timothée Chalamet in “Marty Supreme.”Photograph courtesy A24 / Everett

The cinema of non-stop nail-biting has found two terrific new standard-bearers—and produced two of the year’s most vigorously sustained leading performances. In Josh Safdie’s globe-trotting nineteen-fifties comedy, “Marty Supreme,” Timothée Chalamet is, like the New York table-tennis whiz he plays, a man in the dogged and unapologetic pursuit of greatness. In Mary Bronstein’s hyper-adrenalized domestic-horror movie, “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” Rose Byrne scales dizzying new heights of maternal anxiety as a Montauk therapist who has long since reached the end of her tether. The two movies share a producer, Ronald Bronstein (husband of Mary), who also co-wrote and edited “Marty Supreme.” They also both possess a darkly exhilarating momentum, an almost competitive refusal to let their protagonists’ energies go unmatched.

16. “The Mastermind” and 17. “No Other Choice”

An unemployed husband and father decides to seize control of a dire situation, only to make things direr still. So begins Kelly Reichardt’s exquisitely crafted art-heist film, “The Mastermind,” starring Josh O’Connor—in the most sneakily trenchant of his four major performances this year—as a privileged fuckup with delusions of criminal grandeur. So, too, begins Park Chan-wook’s gleefully rambunctious anti-corporate murder farce, “No Other Choice,” in which Lee Byung-hun, unleashing an exuberant slapstick energy, becomes a bumbling crook for the ages.

18. “Sorry, Baby” and 19. “Souleymane’s Story”

Two figures sit outside looking toward each other.
Eva Victor and John Carroll Lynch in “Sorry, Baby.”Photograph by Philip Keith / A24 / Everett

In one of many gemlike scenes in “Sorry, Baby,” a young English-literature professor (Eva Victor, making a terrific feature début as writer, director, and actor) is questioned on a jury panel about whether she’s ever been the victim of a crime. Toward the end of Boris Lojkine’s heartbreaking immigrant drama, “Souleymane’s Story,” an undocumented Guinean laborer (Abou Sangaré) in Paris submits to an in-person interview during his quest for asylum. Here are two perfectly observed, exactingly empathetic character studies, both concerned with questions of what we owe the law and what the law owes us, and both firm in the conviction that a person’s story is theirs to tell and no one else’s.

20. “Black Bag” and 21. “Presence”

Richard Linklater had one of the great double bills of 2025 (see Nos. 12 and 25 on this list). The director Steven Soderbergh and the screenwriter David Koepp had another with “Black Bag,” a delectably witty espionage thriller with a slippery yet sincere marital drama at its core, and “Presence,” a formally ingenious ghost story that doubles as a chronicle of family dysfunction. Both films are ultimately home-invasion thrillers of a sort, in which the precise nature of the invasion, and the motives of the invader(s), remain a mystery until the final moments. They confirm Soderbergh and Koepp as one of the nimblest and most reliable creative partnerships at work anywhere in the vicinity of Hollywood today.

22. “Misericordia” and 23. “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery”

Suspicious priests, wacky confessions, unexplained disappearances, grisly murders: such is the terrain of “Misericordia,” Alain Guiraudie’s hilariously deadpan thriller about a prodigal sociopath, and “Wake Up Dead Man,” Rian Johnson’s intricately constructed parochial whodunnit. Guiraudie’s film may ultimately be the richer, wilder, less orthodox entertainment, but Johnson’s inspired puzzle-making, here and in his two previous “Knives Out” mysteries, remains a welcome throwback pleasure indeed.

24. “Sinners” and 25. “Nouvelle Vague”

Blackandwhite image of two figures sitting at a restaurant table turned toward each other.
Zoey Deutch, Aubry Dullin, and Guillaume Marbeck in “Nouvelle Vague.”Photograph courtesy Netflix / Everett

Hear me out: “Sinners,” Ryan Coogler’s rigorously imagined thriller-fantasy set during the era of Jim Crow, and “Nouvelle Vague,” Richard Linklater’s rigorously researched comedy about the making of Jean-Luc Godard’s “Breathless,” are the year’s two most exacting studies in let’s-put-on-a-show entrepreneurship, in which a band of outsiders join together in scrappy pursuit of creative principles that defy the commercial norms of their era. Coogler shows what it takes to open a juke joint; Linklater unpacks what it takes to make a Jean-Luc joint. “Sinners” culminates in a showdown with bloodthirsty vampires; “Nouvelle Vague,” for some, is a curious exercise in vampirism, crowned by Guillaume Marbeck’s uncanny embodiment of Godard’s cool—a performance that practically flirts with bodily possession.

Honorable mentions

28 Years Later,” “Below the Clouds,” “BLKNWS: Terms & Conditions,” “Cover-Up,” “Eephus,” “Father Mother Sister Brother,” “Grand Tour,” “Is This Thing On?,” “The Love That Remains,” “Magellan,” “The Perfect Neighbor,” “Peter Hujar’s Day,” “Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk,” “The Shrouds,” “Warfare,” and “Weapons.”


The Year’s Best Movies Are Reflections, Assertions, and Expansions of the Art

RICHARD BRODY

Last year at this time, an expanded cinema dominated local movie theatres, introducing spectacular cinematic forms—the point-of-view shots in “Nickel Boys,” the fragmented narrative of “Christmas Eve in Miller’s Point”—that lost none of their abstract wonders when seen on small screens at home. This year’s movies have been different: the best of them have brought old-fashioned, sensory spectacle back to the movies, albeit in new ways. Movies as immediately eye-catching attractions, built to thrill with size and scale and scope, follow in a venerable tradition of enticing viewers to movie theatres for experiences inaccessible via home viewing. In this regard, the makers of some of the year’s most substantial films are reproducing razzle-dazzle strategies that, in recent times, have largely been the province of commerce-striving blockbusters. That effort has a historical precedent: in the nineteen-fifties, Hollywood juiced movies with such techniques as widescreen images, stereo sound, and 3-D effects, in order to offer moviegoers what a rapidly ascending source of home entertainment—television—could not.

The economic rationale is obvious: ticket sales are still a major source of revenue for movies. But what’s fascinating is that many of the year’s best movies, even ones made by streaming services and given only nominal theatrical releases—such as “Hedda” and “Highest 2 Lowest”—share the spectacular dimension. What the immensity and the sensory intensity of these movies evoke is something of a paradox: not fantasy or distraction but a confrontation with the power dynamics of public life. It takes more than money to create such extravaganzas, and, with these movies, the additional elements show. Along with their physical splendor, the films in question embody the conflict-riddled abstractions—companies and contracts, laws and institutions—on which they depend.

This year’s best movies feel plugged in, inextricably connected to forces bigger than the ordinary faces of local and private authority—and confrontationally so, with a sense of danger and urgency amid forms of pressure that are all the more terrifying for acting invisibly and inexorably. In other words, these movies are all political thrillers—some of them literally so, with stories that overtly involve governmental actions. Others, whose stories merely suggest a political perspective, are no less energized by it. In all, the usual cinematic run of crime and evasion, desperate measures and paranoid obsessions, reverberate with a specific sense of playing for more than a payday or a romance. The films belong to history at large.

Spectacular cinema, regardless of substance or commercial appeal, places special artistic demands on directors, for the simple reason that it involves events and actions beyond the daily purview. Extraordinary subjects call for extraordinary styles, which is why this year’s best films offer the special thrills of aesthetic tours de force pulled off with flair. That’s also why there’s something especially disheartening about mediocrity on a grand scale, as with the glut of overproduced, overblown franchise films, which lack both personalized imagination and the more modest virtue of clear observation.

Last month, the industry analyst Richard Rushfield noted that “suddenly, Hollywood isn’t making dramatic films anymore,” and did some box-office analysis demonstrating both the dearth of drama (defined loosely as earnest realism) and its lack of commercial success. But he also noted that the genre still thrives—on TV. The success of drama in TV-series form suggests that it’s actually wrong to blame the box office for the waning of the genre on the big screen. What has doomed movie dramas is, instead, their aesthetic (or lack thereof). Because their basic concern is with psychology and messaging, screenplays dominate and the direction is often merely functional, as it also tends to be on TV (because of the script-driven demands of showrunning) and with franchise films (because of domineering studios). Even independent dramatic features made without overbearing producers are often directed no more originally than ones made for TV. That’s the artistic hazard of realism: the filming of ordinary life in realistic ways defaults to inconspicuous and modest styles.

This isn’t just a problem for Hollywood and independent filmmakers. It has long been an issue in international filmmaking, intensifying in recent years. Because of economic difficulties in national film industries (whether a matter of box-office or of financing) international co-productions have proliferated, and these often yield a blandly homogenized international style. Alternatively, sometimes the quest to reach world markets by way of film-festival acclaim gives rise to the opposite—to big swings and big misses, the kind of festival films that, by ambition, idiosyncrasy, and length, cut through the clamor but exude affectation and effortfulness. (Such flashy methods also often elide substance in favor of hand-waving generalities and coy silences, as in such recent releases as “Sirāt” and “Sound of Falling.”)

In other words, festival darlings, from here or elsewhere, frequently offer borrowed styles, modelling themselves either on commercial successes or on succès d’estime and providing little in the way of an immediate and first-person reckoning with cinematic form. This, above all, is what’s at stake in the year’s exciting spate of self-aware cinematic spectacles. In their confrontations with power, the year’s best films also confront the artistic power of the cinema itself. Their spectacular aspect neither diminishes nor merely adorns their subjects; the challenge that this year’s best films meet is to develop copious texts, energetic dramas, and substantial ideas by way of a turn to the image, by attention to the “how” and the “why” of movies. The year’s best movies are reflections, assertions, and expansions of the art of the cinema itself, at a time when the art form is under siege from its small-screen rivals.

1. “Sinners”

Closeup image of two figures standing close together looking above camera with fearful looks on their faces.
Michael B. Jordan and Miles Caton in “Sinners.”Photograph courtesy Warner Bros. / Everett

The dazzling virtuosity with which Ryan Coogler meets the technical challenge of casting Michael B. Jordan in the dual role of identical twins is matched by the conceptual audacity of this historical drama, set in rural Mississippi in 1932, and centered on the essence of the blues and the music’s colossal reach—emotional, cultural, political, economic, and even metaphysical. The twins, returning home after enriching themselves in gangland Chicago, open a juke joint and hire a young prodigy and an esteemed elder to perform there. By raising their music to new local prominence, they unintentionally attract cosmic predators (vampires!) who hope to lay hold of it. Coogler melds a richly detailed social background—a vision of the inescapable violence of the Jim Crow era—with the overwhelming romanticism of love and lust under fire.

2. “The Mastermind”

Setting this drama of a quick heist and its long aftermath in 1970, amid nationwide protests against the Vietnam War and Nixonian efforts to repress dissent, Kelly Reichardt extracts a criminal scheme from the petty realm of profit and recognizes it as desperate, blundering existential revolt. Josh O’Connor plays the titular planner, an out-of-work cabinetmaker at odds with his suburban comforts and the vague constraints of ordinary life, who devises a plan to steal paintings from a museum and thereby launches himself into extraordinary adventures—comedic, melancholy, calamitous—that mesh ever tighter with the political conflicts of the day.

3. “The Secret Agent”

The mind-bending pressures of political persecution under an authoritarian regime are merely the premise for the Brazilian director Kleber Mendonça Filho’s ample, turbulent, propulsively energetic, and ferociously principled drama, set in 1977, while the country was ruled by a military dictatorship. Wagner Moura brings taut control and thoughtful dynamism to the role of a scientist driven into hiding by legal and extralegal threats. Mendonça centers the expressively written, finely observed story on the safe house where the scientist is harbored and exalts his extended community of secret sympathizers while also contemplating in unflinching detail the crude malevolence of his persecutors.

4. “The Phoenician Scheme”

Wes Anderson’s films are always plugged in, or, at least, have been so since “Moonrise Kingdom.” With the highest degree of fantasy, he approaches political life with a blend of hands-on conflict and philosophical abstraction, and in this movie he pursues the tendency to distant extremes, viewing international tycoonery and industrial modernization amid espionage, imperialism, and revolt—and also amid family conflict. As ever, Anderson’s hyper-ornamental style is a crucially substantial embodiment of power. Here, that power is also domestic: this is one of the year’s many films in which a father-daughter bond is the engine of drama.

5. “Hedda”

Closeup of figure wearing nice jewelry and putting an object to her mouth.
Tessa Thompson in “Hedda.”Photograph courtesy Amazon MGM Studios / Everett

Nia DaCosta supercharges Ibsen’s “Hedda Gabler” by expanding its setting to the hermetic majesty of a lavish country estate and the overheated whirl of a welcome-home party for the heroine and her overtaxed husband, and by making her purple past dominate the present tense. The film also brings the intellectual achievement at the play’s center—an academic manuscript—to passionate dramatic life. Here, the action takes place in nineteen-fifties England, Hedda (Tessa Thompson) is Black, and the scholar who was Hedda’s former lover is a woman (Nina Hoss). DaCosta rightly finds Ibsen capacious enough for dramatic and cultural possibilities far beyond his immediate purview—apt tribute, both faithful and free, from one artist to another.

6. “Afternoons of Solitude”

Sixty-five-plus years of lightweight synch-sound cameras—and, then, compact video equipment—have turned observational documentaries into a cliché in constant need of reimagination. Few filmmakers do so as comprehensively as Albert Serra does, with a subject that demands an especially wary form of observation: bullfighting. The result is a rigorous, unflinching view of mortal showdowns ravishingly stylized. The film follows a single torero through a year and a half of bouts, showing behind-the-scenes preparation and after-the-battle medical care and emotional decompression—but it’s dominated by the dangers of the corrida, and Serra, needing to find a method for seeing closely but from safely afar, invents an aesthetic to go with it.

7. “Highest 2 Lowest”

Spike Lee’s remake of Akira Kurosawa’s “High and Low” is better than the original because it filters out the police-procedural sidetrack and endows the story with a substantial and provocative blast of cultural politics. Lee sets it in Brooklyn—where else?—but in a sleek and posh new waterfront high-rise. The protagonist, played by Denzel Washington, is a music executive who must ransom the kidnapped teen-age son of his longtime friend, and whose rescue effort brings him deep into the world of hip-hop, which he once boosted and now disdains. The visual swing, confrontational dialogue, and wide-world stakes expand Lee’s cinematic universe into strange new turf.

7½. “This Life of Mine”

For her last film, Sophie Fillières, who knew that she was terminally ill while making it, ran to the end of a path she’d long been following and leaped into the void. The inhibitions and idiosyncrasies on the basis of which she crafted her protagonists in more than two decades of filmmaking are here expanded to transcendental adventure. Agnès Jaoui—starring as a poet who works at an ad agency where she no longer fits in, grabs avidly but awkwardly at a new life, and then gets sick—invests every impulse and hesitation, every exclamation point and question mark in Fillières’s script, with a self-affirming lilt of liberation. (This film, released in France in 2024, is still unreleased in the U.S.)

8. “Misericordia”

Alain Guiraudie, who has for decades explored the emotional and social dimensions of gay life in rural France, crafts an erotic thriller that’s also a murder mystery, albeit one of a distinctive and inventive sort. A thirtysomething baker returns to a small town for the funeral of his mentor, a man with whom he had been secretly in love. He’s welcomed into the household by the mentor’s widow, and, when that couple’s adult son vanishes, he comes under suspicion. While unfolding the investigation, Guiraudie also finds the town seething with stifled lust that’s ready to burst out volcanically—and that’s inseparable from the natural mystery and wonder of country life.

9. “One Battle After Another”

Two figures lie in a bed with a baby crying in between them.
Teyana Taylor and Leonardo DiCaprio in “One Battle After Another.”Photograph courtesy Warner Bros. / Everett

The lucidity and directness of Paul Thomas Anderson’s premise—revolution is a thrilling and ruinous myth, community organization is comparatively dull but urgently helpful—is this year’s cinematic purloined letter, too obvious to be acknowledged, especially by those who either share in the myth or decry it as reality. Much of the movie is a muddle of tone, with scattershot antics and tossed-off themes amid scenes and moments of immense power. On the other hand, its grand and deft action scenes are balanced by breathtakingly exquisite pinpoint observations: one of the year’s great cinematic touches is a small rug rolling itself back automatically, by design, to conceal a secret escape hatch.

10. “Marty Supreme”

This hectic and violent, romantic and antic drama, set in 1952 and freely adapted from the life of the table-tennis champion Marty Reisman, stars Timothée Chalamet as a fast-talking, shamelessly self-serving, recklessly self-confident young star of the game whose schemes propel him far from his Lower East Side beginnings—into the city’s high-culture cloisters, the criminal underworld, and the realm of international diplomacy. As directed by Josh Safdie (who wrote the script with Ronald Bronstein), the tale lurches wildly through a series of tense adventures that defy logic and prudence, as Marty himself does, in favor of experience and excitement—and that fill the screen with a tangy array of brazen, willful characters who put up a good fight.

11. “Nouvelle Vague” and “Blue Moon”

Two figures stand wearing suits.
Andrew Scott and Ethan Hawke in “Blue Moon.”Photograph courtesy Sony Pictures Classics / Everett

The accidental diptych offered this year by Richard Linklater, of two artists—the filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard on his way up and the songwriter Lorenz Hart on his way out—also offers contrasting dramatic styles that suggest the polar extremes of bio-pics. “Nouvelle Vague,” about the making of Godard’s first feature, “Breathless,” is a hedgehog movie, defining Godard by the ideas that emerge from his working life with his cast, his crew, and his fellow-filmmakers; it’s a marvel of impersonation. In “Blue Moon,” Linklater’s vision of Hart is personal and fox-like, an intimate portrait of him at a bar as he dispenses glittering aphorisms of lifeworn wisdom in the face of professional and romantic disasters—a marvel of incarnation.

12. “Eephus”

For his first feature, Carson Lund developed a daring premise, telling the story of a single baseball game—in a New England adult-recreational league, some time in the nineteen-nineties, on a field that’s about to be erased by the construction of a school—from the time that the players approach the field to the time that they leave it. Lund keeps the action tethered to the site, ranging no farther than the dugouts, the woods beyond the outfield, and the nearest street. From this challenge, Lund provides a pointillistic group portrait of idiosyncratic characters, parses the sport’s action with a singularly analytical yet subjective eye, and expands the melancholy of farewells to symphonic dimensions.

13. “Peter Hujar’s Day”

From the amazing but narrow premise of reënacting a 1974 interview of the photographer Peter Hujar by the writer Linda Rosenkrantz, Ira Sachs develops a mighty and vivid portrait of an era and a milieu—and a memorial for Hujar himself, who died in 1987, of aids. The subject of the conversation is what Hujar did in the previous day. The movie has only two actors, Ben Whishaw and Rebecca Hall, but their performances are more than merely precise and expressive—they’re evocative, and what they evoke is the people under discussion, such as Susan Sontag and Allen Ginsberg. The movie conjures them all, bringing these personalities to the mind’s eye as vividly as if they were physically filmed as characters.

14. “Invention”

In a year of father-and-daughter movies, it’s refreshing to see this boldly accomplished daughter-and-father movie, from the woman’s point of view—one that’s sharpened and amplified by its blend of fiction and nonfiction. It’s made jointly by Courtney Stephens, who directed, and Callie Hernandez, who co-wrote it and plays Carrie Fernandez, who travels to a rural Massachusetts town to claim the ashes of her late father and gets entangled in the economic, social, and supernatural mysteries surrounding a dubious medical invention that he’d tried to market. With observational precision and unhinged dialogue, the filmmakers traverse the wilds of conspiracies and frauds to discern mighty and enduring connections of nature and culture.

15. “The Fishing Place”

The veteran American independent filmmaker Rob Tregenza, filming for the second time in Norway, here probes the country’s history in a drama set during its occupation by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. A Norwegian woman who’s installed as the housekeeper for a German émigré priest in exile gets caught in a tangle of conflicting loyalties and high-stakes maneuvers. The movie is a series of intimate confrontations, public and private, which Tregenza—doing his own virtuosic cinematography—films in monumentally extended shots, mounting the camera on a crane that he wields like a paintbrush that ultimately pivots toward his own activity in one of the boldest and strangest of recent reflexive twists.

16. “This Woman”

This first feature by Alan Zhang, which she co-wrote with Hihi Lee, builds a shifting interplay of fiction and nonfiction into the melodramatic story of a young woman in Beijing named Beibei, a real-estate agent who gets drawn ever closer, albeit platonically, to a male colleague whose wife lashes out threateningly. Burdened with family obligations, Beibei needs money and takes increasingly desperate measures to get it—then the pandemic freezes her life in place. With coolly passionate images, frankly declarative dialogue, and interludes in the form of interviews, Zhang discerningly sees through the characters’ immediate troubles to the pressures imposed by Chinese society at large.

17. “The Empire”

On a decade-plus roll since the self-reinventive inspirations of “Li’l Quinquin,” Bruno Dumont extends that local epic to cosmic dimensions in a “Star Wars” parody set on France’s rugged northern coast. With a story of secret cabals and a child born to rule, Dumont projects the nasty prejudices and bureaucratic rigors of local politics, the tangles of family allegiances, and the tender grunge of young lust into divine and diabolical clashes run from celestial and subterranean castles. The result is as outrageous and uproarious as it is visionary.

18. “Fire of Wind”

The Portuguese director Marta Mateus’s first feature, baring layers of history and legend beneath local events, is set in a vineyard where laborers, menaced by a bull that gets free—or perhaps has been unleashed against them—take refuge high in the estate’s trees. There, they tell stories of their lives and the difficulties and deprivations that they’ve long endured, including ones involving war and persecution. The cast features nonprofessional actors drawn from the area; their declamatory style of performance, along with Mateus’s hieratic images, endow the movie’s dramatic realism with the power of myth.

19. “On Becoming a Guinea Fowl”

The Zambian-born British director Rungano Nyoni sets this drama in Zambia’s capital, Lusaka, where a young woman who has recently returned home from Europe for a family visit chances, on a late-night drive, to find a corpse in the road: her uncle. In the resulting turmoil, female relatives voice accusations that he had sexually assaulted them. As family secrets emerge, the protagonist is outraged to discover the prevalence of sexual predation—along with the power of patriarchal institutions and a code of silence to protect the predators. Nyoni films with a keen-edged clarity while finding in daily life a rich array of symbols ready to release their explosive meaning.

20. “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You”

Closeup of a figure lying on bed with hand on head looking downward to the other side of bed.
Rose Byrne in “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You.”Photograph by Logan White / A24

Mary Bronstein, in her second feature, captures fury under pressure with as distinctive a tone and a style, and as unusual a realm of sympathies, as she did in her first, “Yeast.” In the story of a mother whose chronically ill daughter requires exceptional attention and whose husband, a sea captain, is away for long stretches, Bronstein discovers new and nerve-shredding ways to compose and deploy closeups, turns casual encounters into emotionally violent crises, and—amid intense visual identification with the protagonist (incarnated with red-hot energy by Rose Byrne)—doesn’t hesitate to consider in context the calmer virtues of forethought and reason.

As a general rule, documentaries should be judged no differently from fiction films. But, in this year of foregrounded spectacle, the rule is hard to keep to. The best of this year’s many excellent nonfiction films are no less worthy than the year’s fictions, but it’s essentially impossible to rank comparatively across the two categories. So I’m putting them on their own here: “Suburban Fury,” “Life After,” “Pavements,” “Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk,” “Zodiac Killer Project,” “Carol & Joy.” ♦

How “The New Yorker at 100” Got to Netflix

2025-12-05 20:06:02

2025-12-05T11:00:00.000Z

A decade, as a unit of time, is more particular and peculiar than we’d suspect. Ten years is simultaneously long enough to recognize long-term trends and short enough to be a discrete period in our memory. A century—for everyone save historians and the 0.03 per cent of Americans who live that long—is unwieldy, too much time for us to grasp as a unit. But imagine a hundred years as a stack of ten decades, each arranged above the other like books on a desk, their spines neatly designating which years they contain, and the weight of a century becomes almost tangible. The New Yorker, which celebrates its centenary this year, is the subject of the aptly titled documentary “The New Yorker at 100,” which is now out on Netflix.

The task of making meaning from the roughly five thousand issues—along with innumerable online articles, thousands of podcast episodes, and hundreds of short films—of a publication defined by an itinerant curiosity is not an enviable one. The film, which was directed by Marshall Curry, deploys a dual structure that explores both how the hundredth-anniversary issue came together, following reporters, editors, cartoonists, covers editors, and fact checkers as they do their work, and defining themes of each of its past ten decades. The result is a view of The New Yorker both contemporary and historical. What did John Hersey’s “Hiroshima” mean to those who read it in 1946? How did Rachel Carson’s foundational article “Silent Spring” come to be, and how did it impact the Zeitgeist of the sixties? How have The New Yorker’s five editors during the past hundred years shaped and modernized a publication that is both strikingly similar to its original ideal and wildly distinct from it?

In tone and in its roving interest in its subject matter, “The New Yorker at 100” is akin to an issue of the magazine in documentary form. At a première screening of the documentary at this year’s New Yorker Festival, on October 25th, I spoke with Curry and Judd Apatow, an executive producer of the film, about how they approached the project, the challenges of interviewing journalists, and their own relationships to The New Yorker. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

JELANI COBB: Among the things that struck me about this film was that having a sense of the history, and a sense of the magazine and all of the things that go into it, would seem to me just an impossible task, for a century. It’d be difficult to make a film about one year at The New Yorker. So, I wonder how you all approached the daunting task of taking this sprawling, incredibly culturally significant publication—this idea that is The New Yorker—and turning it into this very taut, very disciplined frame to understand a century of its life.

MARSHALL CURRY: That was definitely a challenge in the film. You’ve got this unbelievable magazine—even just getting a tiny fraction of the current writers was impossible. And that times a hundred years. It was kind of an impossible task. Right before I started, the staff writer Nick Paumgarten told me, “Trying to make a ninety-minute film about The New Yorker is like trying to make a ninety-minute film about America.”

COBB: Accurate.

CURRY: So we sort of decided, We’re not going to be able to have everything. We’re going to pick historical events that have a great story, that are about a piece that affected culture, that are about a piece that affected the magazine, and we’re just going to pick a tiny number of them. And the same thing with writers and cartoonists and cover editor folks. We were just going to make it a tasting menu, a sampler box of chocolates—just enough to give you a sense of what this magazine’s history was.

But somebody said that it should’ve been a ten-part Ken Burns series. And it could’ve been. It would not have been boring, if we’d had the bandwidth to do that.

Françoise Mouly flipping through different New Yorker covers options.
The New Yorker’s longtime art editor, Françoise Mouly, at work in her office.Photograph courtesy Netflix

COBB: Judd, did you have any trepidation? Did the scope of this give you any trepidation as a producer?

JUDD APATOW: Yeah, you’re scared, because it’s something you respect so much, and you don’t want to do a really terrible version of it. And so we knew that encapsulating it was going to be impossible. But I just think Marshall did such a beautiful job making all those really difficult and also heartbreaking decisions. Because we all know of other things that could’ve been in—“How come they didn’t talk about that?”—but the choices were really great.

CURRY: It did feel at some times like our team was in this field of fireflies with a jar, and you’d just sort of run and catch one, and catch one more, and there’s just this sort of incredible constellation of fireflies everywhere you look.

COBB: Given the amount of material there is to work with, how did you approach the archive? How much stuff did you look at from previous eras and previous decades of the magazine’s life?

CURRY: We probably started with fifteen or twenty greatest-hits stories. If you ask anybody who knows The New Yorker what the main stories are, the top twenty or so come up frequently. And so we kind of started with that. And then, like I said, we were looking for things that affected the magazine, that affected the history—and, of course, we’re making a movie, so it also had to be something that had a visual component.

I remember the first time I met David [Remnick], when I was pitching myself on the project, I said to him, “Frequently, young filmmakers will ask me for advice on what makes a good documentary. And my stock answer is, ‘There’s some stories that are great New Yorker stories, but they’re not documentaries, because a documentary has to be visual.’ ” And I said, “David, I’ve gotta tell you, I feel pretty weird because I’m here pitching my cautionary tale”—the thing that I tell hundreds of young people not to do. But it just seemed like there were so many brilliant people and so many amazing stories that it was worth figuring out.

COBB: And is it O.K. if I turn your own question back on you, and ask you both how you became aware of The New Yorker—what your earliest consciousness about The New Yorker is?

APATOW: I’m very embarrassed to answer this question, but it wasn’t that long ago.

COBB: It was last week.

APATOW: [Laughs.] No, but it is pretty bad. I’m from Long Island, and my magazine of choice—I don’t know if you’ve heard of it, but it’s Us Weekly. And that was most of what I was reading. TV Guide, I’d read it like a book, because there were articles at the front.

I was writing a movie with Owen Wilson, and I went to visit him in Texas, and his parents are very cool people, and his mom, Laura, was Richard Avedon’s assistant, and did the Old West photo collection, and is an amazing photographer. And Owen was talking a lot about The New Yorker. And I had heard of The New Yorker before but I don’t think that I had read it. And I was just so embarrassed that it sounded smart and I couldn’t talk to Owen about it. And Wes [Anderson], obviously, was very into The New Yorker. And I just thought, “What kind of Long Island idiot am I, that I don’t know about this?” And I started reading it then. So, the answer is forty-two years old.

COBB: And Marshall, what about you?

CURRY: I grew up in New Jersey, mostly, and my parents got The New Yorker. I would look at the cover and flip through the cartoons, and that was sort of it. And over time, I started reading The Talk of the Town and maybe a few more articles. And then, in my twenties, I got my own subscription. So I actually have always liked it.

Making this film, I realized that there are real fanatics about The New Yorker. I couldn’t have named all the editors. There are people who really know The New Yorker. I was not one of those. I was a casual consumer. But I liked it, and I knew how smart the people were who worked there, and how creative they were, and how unusual their obsession was. And so that was kind of what drew me to it.

APATOW: One thing I wanted to say that I also think Marshall did so well, and that we were excited about, was just telling the story of the people who work at The New Yorker. I mean, that’s what I think is so great about the film. People are so tough on journalism, and I never understand it when everyone’s mad at the media at the level they are. But when you watch something like this, you see how dedicated and honest and amazing everybody is. And I think it’s really important to put things like that out into the world.

COBB: One thing I really appreciated—I kind of laughed out loud—was the inclusion of Bruce [Diones], the office manager. When I first got to The New Yorker, every problem I had, they sent me to Bruce. It could be anything—I feel like I’m getting a toothache, go talk to Bruce. It was, like, every single thing. And at every institution, probably at your job or at your kids’ school, there’s that one person who seemingly makes all the things, all the engines, work. And so it’s, like, Bruce, what exactly is in your job description? And I thought it was great that you all included this.

Still of Bruce Diones in his office
Bruce Diones, the magazine’s office manager, joined The New Yorker in 1978.Photograph courtesy Netflix

I did want to ask, aside from the scope, which we talked about, if there was anything else that was a particular challenge in doing this project, and if anything jumps out—something that you learned in the course of doing this that maybe surprised you.

CURRY: The No. 1 challenge was scope—just how you get it all down. The other challenge was that there wasn’t an obvious arc to it. Most of the movies I make are one or two people who want something, and there are obstacles, and in the end they get it or they don’t get it.

And so we had to figure out, How do these scenes fit together? How do all of these characters who are connected to this magazine, but don’t necessarily all work in the same space together, interact with each other? How do we build something that feels linear, like a movie? And how do you get the history into it? Finding ways for the history to speak to the [current day]—the way that the Capote story tees up the fact checkers, that sort of thing.

But I’ll say, the other big challenge is that everybody who works at The New Yorker knows how a profile works. And that makes them hard to make profiles about.

There’s a trick that you learn as a documentary filmmaker very early, which is that when you’re interviewing somebody, you ask a question and then you let the person answer, and then you don’t speak, because your temptation is to jump on to the next question. But if you leave that hole there, then that creates that socially awkward silence, and frequently the person who you’re interviewing will fill that silence, will be drawn to fill that silence, and they’ll say something that’s a perfect summation of the thing they just said in a long-winded way, or it’s a surprising twist on the thing—it’s frequently the best stuff. And I was interviewing David [Remnick], and he said something, and I waited. And he looked at me, and he nodded, and I looked back at him. And he said, “I know this trick, too.” And it was, like, Ah!

So just the awareness of how their stories were going to be told was a sort of constant cat-and-mouse challenge. But, you know, if you spend enough time around somebody, and they’re willing—and I think the people who we profiled were sort of willing to share themselves—then you can get surprising, delightful insights.

COBB: The film did a good job, from my vantage point, of seeing how something that I submit, which I think of as just a bunch of words, goes through this process and gradually becomes a New Yorker article.

You send it to them, and they send back edits, and you go back and forth with your editor, and then you send it back after you’ve addressed all the edits, and they send it back to you, but now it’s in New Yorker font, and that looks different, and you go through copy edits, and then they send another galley back and now it has cartoons, and, over the course of it, it turns into this thing that you wrote but you don’t wholly own. It becomes a part of this entire collective undertaking, and especially the fact-checking—I thought that was a great depiction of what that experience is like.

I will add an addendum to David’s point, however—he said it’s been compared to a colonoscopy, and I think that the entire thing is that it has been compared to a colonoscopy while being audited by the I.R.S.

APATOW: I’ve been on the other side of that—you get the call and they want to go over everything you’ve said with you, and you can’t believe that you have to do it. Like, because you did an interview, you have to talk to someone for an hour and a half on the phone and say, “Yeah, I did say all the stuff you’re saying”? But then every once in a while you say something really terrible to a reporter and then they go, “Did you say that?” And you’re, like, “No.” And they’re, like, “It’s on the tape.” And you’re, like, “I don’t know, might be A.I., I don’t know . . .”

COBB: [Laughter.] So, I do want to talk a little bit about history. You pointed this out—it had never occurred to me prior to you making this point, but four of the five editors in The New Yorker’s history have been non-native New Yorkers. And I wonder just kind of in the course of doing this, and getting an assessment of who Harold Ross was and who William Shawn was, if that registered in any way, if you came up with any kind of armchair theory about what binds these people together, or what maybe common themes there are in these figures that have led the publication.

CURRY: Yeah, that was something that surprised me. If you’d asked me, the day before I started this project, “Who do you think founded The New Yorker?,” I would’ve said, Oh, some Princeton guy from the Upper East Side. And no—turns out it was a high-school graduate from a Colorado mining town. And that is a big part of what makes The New Yorker The New Yorker, I think. Not to say that they don’t have any Princeton guys there. But also, there is an outsider perspective to New York and to writing that I think is explicitly part of their approach. And I’ve heard Susan [Morrison, the magazine’s articles editor] talk about it too—just that if you have an outsider’s view, you can see things that insiders can’t see.

There’s a famous E. B. White quote that we considered putting at the beginning of the film that basically talked about the three New Yorks. The first New York is the New York of the locals, who have been here forever—native New Yorkers. Then there’s the New York of the commuters, and then there’s the New York of the settlers, the pilgrims, the people who come to New York looking for something. And E. B. White essentially says that the first gives New York its stability, the second gives it the churn and the money, and the third gives it its passion. And that third group is a surprisingly significant number of people who’ve run The New Yorker, the people who built The New Yorker, and the people who are there now. There are lots and lots of folks who work there who are outsiders and bring that love of New York but with outside perspective.

COBB: It seems like that is the quintessential New Yorker. I’m a native New Yorker, but my mother came here from Alabama and my father came here from Georgia. And, in some ways, I feel like they were more New Yorkers than I am, because I’ve always taken the city kind of for granted.

So, Judd, I wondered this—I guess I should have asked this at the top; it’s a kind of fundamental question—which is that you were attached to this project first, if I understand correctly. What was the draw, what was the appeal? Was it just, “I’ll show that Owen Wilson”?

APATOW: Well, I love the magazine. I love this Festival. [Applause.] And I also love movies like this. This is the kind of movie and documentary that I want to exist. And that’s basically how I decide what to do.

But I’ve also had such a nice relationship with the magazine over the years. I always remember being at this Festival in 2007 with Seth Rogen, right after “Knocked Up” and “Superbad” came out, and it was just one of the most fun nights of my entire life. [The film critic] David Denby interviewed us, and it was so great. And this sounds strange, but when I made “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” there was a review that David Denby had for it, and at the end he said something that really inspired me in my writing afterward. He was talking about Catherine Keener’s character’s relationship with Steve Carrell’s, and he said something like, “You know that this relationship is going to be really hard, but it’s going to be worth it.”

And I felt deeply understood in what I was trying to express in the movie, and it kind of gave me the courage to write “Knocked Up.” Like, oh, you can write complicated relationships that are kind of rough at times. And so I just always felt that connection with the magazine and people like Richard Brody, who’s always been very kind to me, and so I was happy to be a part of this in a tiny way, so I can pretend I’m part of The New Yorker.

Different cover options for The New Yorker of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
On election night in 2024, The New Yorker had multiple cover possibilities ready to go.Photograph courtesy Netflix

COBB: We have some questions from the audience, and we will try to get to as many of these as possible. What was something about the current magazine or its history that surprised you during your research or the filming?

CURRY: I mean, to be able to witness the level of obsession was surprising. Like, I’d heard people talk, “Oh, The New Yorker has this fact-checking department, and The New Yorker is obsessed with their work.” But to see a five-hour meeting where they literally go through paragraph by paragraph and argue about whether a word could be a better word—not even factually, but just, like, “Would this be more precise? Would this be better?”

To see how kind of ridiculous some of the obsession is—or, let’s just say, inefficient. They have twenty-something fact checkers on staff. They spend so much time. And they’re competing with magazines and internet stuff that’s just slop, that’s just pouring out. It’s, like, admirably inefficient. It’s like monks that are copying the books over as the barbarians are destroying the libraries. That’s what it feels like. And sometimes you’re, like, Are these people, like, Amish? Or are they the saviors of culture and intellectualism?

One of the movies that I looked at when I was trying to find models was “Jiro Dreams of Sushi.” Which is sort of a weird choice for a movie about a magazine. But it’s about obsession. It’s about picking something that you love and being totally obsessed with it. And I started to think that it’s kind of a metaphor for what The New Yorker does. They’re not trying to compete with McDonald’s hamburgers. They’re not going to make a billion hamburgers. They’re going to make carefully crafted sushi from that day’s fish, piece by piece, for a very small setting of people, who really appreciate it. And if they can find one-point-two-five, or one-point-five, or two million people who will pay them the price of subscription, then they can continue doing that. And, turns out, they’ve been able to do that.

And I’ll say that, when I make documentaries, I frequently have a question that I want to know the answer to. That’s what propels me. And, in this case, the question was: How does The New Yorker exist when Newsweek and Time and U.S. News & World Report and Life and Harper’s to some extent—all of these things have been shut down or are tiny shadows of themselves. How does this magazine do it? And I think the answer is: they make a product that you cannot get for free on the internet, and they ask people to pay for it, and it’s kind of amazing.

COBB: So newyorker.com, if you’d like to fill out your subscription, or renew, or give one as a gift . . .

CURRY: Use purchase code “Marshall Curry” . . . I get ten per cent . . .

COBB: What stories or sequences in your time filming did you love but had to cut?

CURRY: A number of things. Jill Lepore is just a genius and hilarious and she was working on a piece at the New York Public Library which has the archives of the magazine—I don’t even want to tell you because you’re going to all be thinking, “What the hell, why is that not in the movie?” But they say you have to kill your darlings, and it was an incredible darling of darlings. But we had a scene with Adam Gopnik, who just embodies the history and the knowledge of the magazine, that couldn’t make it in. So there were a lot of heartbreaks.

COBB: When we were backstage, we were talking a little bit about how central humor is in this film. When I first sat down to watch it, I was expecting, Oh, O.K., we’ll just kind of go through the history of the magazine, and we’ll see, and, like, Tina Brown’s era brought these changes, and so on. But, like the audience, I laughed out loud, watching it on my computer the first time. And I wondered if that was meant to be a kind of reference to the magazine’s origins as a satirical publication, or if this was just something—maybe we just had a lot of funny things happen. But how did that editorial tone come about?

APATOW: We talked about it from the beginning: there’s no reason why this shouldn’t be really entertaining. Obviously there’s so much humor and wit, but also just the people are so interesting and likable, that I think from the beginning, it was, like, there’s a version of this that feels very dusty, and then there’s a version that’s what the magazine is, which is very alive in the moment of today.

CURRY: And it does sort of structurally mirror, as you said, the fact that the magazine was founded as this comic weekly, and then over time became more serious. Our profiles that we ordered kind of do that too. We kind of focus on the cartoons near the front, and then the politics happen, and then, closer to Tina Brown’s era, we discover celebrity profiles and things like that. So it has a rough structure that follows the tonal changes of the magazine through history.

COBB: Well, I’ll ask you the question that I use when I conclude any interview with any subject, which is: Is there anything that we haven’t talked about that you think is important for the audience to know?

APATOW: We love Roger Angell.

COBB: Everybody loves Roger Angell.

APATOW: I just want that to be said.

COBB: Do you know what is incredibly humbling? When Roger was one hundred, I think this was still during COVID, so there was a Zoom celebration for him. And I did the calculation, and I realized that Roger Angell had been at the top of his game for longer than I had been alive—and I was not a young person. People reach the top of their game and then they fall off. And Roger reached the top of his game and just stayed there. He was like [Shohei] Ohtani, a reference he would appreciate.

But Marshall—I’m sorry.

CURRY: Being a journalist is really hard today. Being a fact-based journalist is really hard today. And this movie is intended to be a celebration of that hard, underappreciated work. And I think some of our favorite responses after we’ve screened the film—it premiered at the Telluride Film Festival, and we’ve had a couple of screenings since then—have been young people. And I’ve heard a couple of young people say, “You know, I never thought about being a journalist before, but, from watching the film, it kind of seems like something I’d want to do.” And, to me, that’s a great review for it.

COBB: Did you tell them to come to Columbia Journalism School?

CURRY: [Laughs.]

COBB: I’ll give you some cards.

CURRY: One other anecdote was that, as we were finishing the film, we needed a song for the final sequence. And we needed something that was New York-themed, but it needed to have, like, a dynamic range that could both sort of sit underneath David Remnick talking about the importance of the magazine and also under party footage, and then would have a little punch when you go to the credits that would say “New York.”

And we were trying all of these different songs, and I texted Kelefa Sanneh, the brilliant music mind, who’s featured in the film, and I said, “Do you have any ideas for a New York song that would work?” And he said, “What if you got someone like Matt Berninger from The National,” this sort of cool indie-rock band, “to record Taylor Swift’s ‘Welcome to New York’?”

And he didn’t know, but I’m super good friends with Matt Berninger, and Matt’s wife was a fiction editor at The New Yorker. And I’d been talking to Matt as well—like, “Can you think of any songs?” So I called him, and said, “Hey, I just had this idea—would you be willing to do this?” And he said, “The problem is”—we were talking on a Saturday—“the day after tomorrow, I’m going to California to rehearse to go on tour. But tomorrow, I could go into a studio and record the song.” But he said, “I don’t know if Taylor Swift’s going to let you use the song. You know, she’s Taylor Swift.”

And so he said, “I’ll record it; if you can get the rights, then you can use it; if not, then whatever.” And so he recorded the song, he sent it to me the next day, we cut it into the film, it was perfect—it had all that fun dynamic range, it was cool, it was smart, it was poppy.

I write Taylor Swift an e-mail; two days later, she says, “Sure,” and, you know—

APATOW: How do you have her e-mail?!

COBB: It’s, like, Taylor Swift never replies to my e-mails. [Laughter.]

CURRY: So that’s the song at the end of the movie. It’s an unreleased version of Taylor Swift’s “Welcome to New York.” I think it’ll be coming out at some point.

COBB: Ladies and gentlemen, Marshall Curry, Judd Apatow—thank you for your work, thank you for the film. ♦

Building a State of Fear in “Extremist”

2025-12-05 20:06:02

2025-12-05T11:00:00.000Z

Watch “Extremist.”

On November 16, 2023, Sasha Skochilenko, a thirty-three-year-old artist, poet, and musician, stood in court to give what is known in the Russian judicial system as the “last word”—final remarks of the accused before the judge delivers a verdict. Skochilenko, from inside a metal cage, where defendants are confined during courtroom hearings, said her case was so “strange and ridiculous” that it felt like an April Fools’ joke, as if “confetti will start falling from above.”

A version of the speech appears near the end of “Extremist,” a short film by the Russian director Alexander Molochnikov, who now lives in New York. The film reimagines the so-called crime that made Skochilenko famous, an avatar for both the cruelty of Putin’s system, and the bravery of the few who would risk their fates and freedom to oppose it. “Even though I am behind bars, I am freer than you,” Skochilenko tells the judge. “I can make my own decisions and say what I think.” She adds, “Maybe that is why the state fears me and others like me so much and keeps me in a cage like a dangerous animal.”

Nearly two years earlier, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Skochilenko had replaced the price tags in a St. Petersburg supermarket with various antiwar messages: “The Russian Army bombed an art school in Mariupol where about 400 people were seeking shelter,” and “Putin has been lying to you from the television screen for 20 years. The result of these lies is our willingness to accept war and senseless deaths.”

That act of guerrilla performance art was noticed by a shopper at the store, a seventy-six-year-old retiree, who reported the new tags to police. (The woman, Galina Baranova, told a Russian news site, “I’m proud of what I did. Isn’t it a real disgrace to see a crime and just turn away?”) An investigation worthy of an extremist ensued: officers examined surveillance footage from the store and tracked down Skochilenko, charging her with the crime of disseminating “knowingly false information” about the actions of the Russian armed forces. After she delivered her last word in court, the judge sentenced her to seven years in prison.

Molochnikov told me that the film does not purport to be a documentary, or even based on Skochilenko’s story, but, rather, he said, “inspired” by it. One key artistic reinterpretation is that, in the film, Skochilenko—who lives with her partner, Sonya—resides in the same apartment building as Baranova. The three of them have pleasant, neighborly relations, saying hello and discussing, in one scene, an afternoon of mushroom picking in the woods. At first Baranova doesn’t know who she has denounced; when she learns it’s Skochilenko, she feels a pang of remorse, telling police, “They’re decent girls.” But her attitude toward them eventually hardens. The price-tag stunt, she says in court, was a “well-planned and cynical” attack. “She is guilty.”

The proximity of Skochilenko and her accuser heightens the film’s sense of tragedy, the almost accidental way that lives collide and shatter—a phenomenon that can happen with terrifying ease in wartime Russia. “The incautious actions of one person, and then a second, together lead to disaster,” Molochnikov told me.

That feeling of closeness, a physical proximity paired with a deep moral disconnect, is a broader metaphor for those in Russia with antiwar views. Molochnikov told me of how, in the days following the invasion, he was filming a television series in a small town in the Vologda region, hundreds of miles from Moscow. He got along well with the locals. “We drank tea together, talking about all sorts of things, not connected to war or politics—it was quite pleasant and warm.” But he could see they supported the war. The friendly receptionist in the hotel listened to Vladimir Solovyov, a particularly noxious pro-war media personality and propagandist, all day. “We had so much in common,” Molochnikov recalled. “But there was a vast abyss between us all the same.”

The fates of the director and his protagonist have taken a number of unexpected turns in the past few years. When Molochnikov wrote the script, Skochilenko was behind bars in Russia. But in August, 2024, a week before he travelled to Riga to shoot the film, she was released in a large-scale prisoner exchange between Russia and several Western countries. (Russia freed more than a dozen political prisoners, including the American journalist Evan Gershkovich.)

Molochnikov told me he viewed the essence of Skochilenko’s heroism less in her initial decision to swap the price tags—“an act of chance, without a full understanding of the consequences”—but more in how she refused to renounce her beliefs. (“You think it’s fake?” she says to the police investigator, in the film, who offers her a lighter sentence in exchange for a public disavowal.) “That is the decision of a hero,” Molochnikov said. “That she didn’t shift into reverse.” Skochilenko, he said, proved herself to be “capable of actions of which we—or at least I—are not.”

As for Molochnikov, he had been a precocious success as a director in Moscow. He staged his first play at the celebrated Moscow Chekhov Art Theatre at twenty-two; when he was twenty-seven, his first opera premièred at the Bolshoi Theatre. But after the invasion, he made a series of antiwar posts on social media. The Bolshoi removed his productions from its repertoire. He left Russia in August of 2022 and enrolled in a graduate program in directing and screenwriting at Columbia University.

“Extremist” was his thesis project. He presented his journey as a rather dramatic and unambiguous case of free fall—“from the twenty-fifth floor to somewhere around minus one,” he explained. But he also feels freer, or at least wiser. “Forgive the pretense,” he told me, “but it became clear to me that what matters is not the size of the stage or budget but the depth and meaning of what you’re trying to say.” In “Extremist,” without spoiling too much, the confetti—in all of its surrealism and absurdity—has the true last word.



Guanyu Xu’s Powerful Photographs of Immigration Limbo

2025-12-05 20:06:02

2025-12-05T11:00:00.000Z

The photographer Guanyu Xu, born in China, based in Chicago, creates densely layered images of installations in domestic spaces that make them look like exploding scrapbooks. In 2018, he began the series “Temporarily Censored Home,” for which he queered large-scale color images of his parents’ house in Beijing with a dizzying array of snapshots and appropriated photos reflecting Xu’s otherwise unacknowledged life as a gay man. His claim to a vivid place in his family’s home, however fleeting, was both playful and powerful. Xu’s new series, “Resident Aliens,” was made in the apartments of immigrants who are hoping to become U.S. citizens but are still making their way through the legal process. By combining their family photos with pictures he made in their homes, Xu helps them stake a claim on a space that looks as fragile as a house of cards.

“RK0828201801142022” from 2022 part of “Resident Aliens.”
“RK-08282018-01142022,” from 2022, part of “Resident Aliens.”Photograph by Guanyu Xu / Courtesy Yancey Richardson

Xu’s resident aliens (he calls them his “collaborators”) are from China, India, Croatia, Sweden, Canada, and elsewhere. The people in the show (at Yancey Richardson, through Dec. 20) are living, for now, in many different cities in the U.S. The process of applying for legal status or citizenship involves regular recordkeeping and documentation—proof of an immigrant’s day-to-day existence that Xu picks up on visually by borrowing and blowing up some of that proof, such as keepsakes and selfies. By shuffling these more personal images with his own photographs of their rooms—draperies, windows, unmade beds, a shower stall—Xu constructs a fascinating if confounding new reality, a stage set destined to be struck. Suspended between permanence and precarity, Xu’s images mirror their occupants’ status and state of mind.—Vince Aletti


The New York City skyline

About Town

Indie Rock

The singer-songwriter and producer Melina Duterte emerged as a lone D.I.Y. virtuoso in the mid-twenty-tens, performing as Jay Som. Duterte played all of the instruments on demos that she first released to Bandcamp, which then became her début, “Turn Into,” and which established her multifaceted dream-pop sound alongside her 2017 bedroom opus, “Everybody Works.” In 2019, she began focussing on her work as a producer and engineer, opening her up to more collaboration: she was in the indie-rock supergroup boygenius’s touring band, and “Belong,” her first album in six years, is her first to feature other writers and musicians. In its songs, a one-woman band finds her place: among the players.—Sheldon Pearce (Warsaw; Dec. 11.)


Off Broadway

The composer Philip Venables and the director Ted Huffman turn Larry Mitchell’s 1977 book “The Faggots and Their Friends Between Revolutions” into a singspiel—revellers amble around a dim stage, accompanying themselves on harpsichord, viola da gamba, and, occasionally, plastic buckets that they beat in martial time. The first line (sung in haunting soprano by Mariamielle Lamagat) sets the key: “It’s been a long time, and we are still not free.” The show takes an oddly languorous approach to Mitchell’s unpretentious fable, a chronicle of “faggot” resistance (via nature, via the exchange of “the magical cock fluid”) against “the men.” It’s telling that the best moment comes when the deliciously mischievous Kit Green breaks the fourth wall—not to mention the ensemble’s air of reverential uplift.—Helen Shaw (Park Avenue Armory; through Dec. 14.)


Dance
Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre in “Revelations.”
Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre in “Revelations.”Photograph by Danica Paulos

Most performances by Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre seem like dances of the gods. But in “Jazz Island,” a première by Maija García, some of the dancers do embody deities of Haitian vodou, called lwa. The work, which tells a folktale of gods interceding in the lives of men, is a return to a neglected mode of storytelling, and it rides on a rich and characterful Afro-Caribbean score by Etienne Charles. Other débuts during the company’s month at City Center—alongside repertory and plenty of “Revelations”—include a work by Matthew Neenan with a score by Heather Christian (a MacArthur Fellow this year) and a brief reimagining, by Jamar Roberts, of Ailey’s 1961 “Hermit Songs.”—Brian Seibert (New York City Center; through Jan. 4.)


Art

“Beauty has no obvious use…yet civilization could not do without it,” Sigmund Freud wrote in 1930. Today, at the “Dress, Dreams, and Desire” exhibition, at F.I.T., beauty abounds, as the show parses the historical dialogue between fashion and psychoanalysis. How do clothes reveal our secret fantasies? Why do we dream about being naked? If a man wears a particularly long necktie, is he compensating for something? Such questions are posed and addressed in the exhibit’s sensually lit chambers, populated by waifish mannequins decked out in extravagant frocks. Gowns from Gaultier, McQueen, Versace, and others are put in conversation with the heavyweights of psychoanalytic thought—mainly Lacan and Freud—via informative commentary curated by Valerie Steele, the museum’s director.—Leo Lasdun (The Museum at FIT; through Jan. 4.)


Broadway
Christiani Pitts and Sam Tutty in TWO STRANGERS.
Christiani Pitts and Sam Tutty.Photograph by Matthew Murphy

Arriving in New York without a solid plan is both the topic and the plight of the musical “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York),” by Jim Barne and Kit Buchan, directed by Tim Jackson, transferring from London’s West End. A naïve Brit, Dougal (Sam Tutty), and a world-weary New Yorker, Robin (Christiani Pitts), meet when Dougal comes to town to see his estranged father marry Robin’s sister; their titular errand leads to sweeter things. Buchan’s story wouldn’t fill a side plate; any of his many plot holes could swallow it. The extraordinary Tutty, however, is a whole dish: he manages to play both adorably inaccurate (“It’s the capital city of the U.S.A.!”) and secretly swaggy; Robin falls for him long after we do.—H.S. (Longacre; open run.)


Movies

Amalie R. Rothschild’s first film, “Woo Who? May Wilson,” from 1969—a thirty-four-minute short, now streaming—raises a portrait of an artist to a vision of the times. Wilson, who was sixty-three during the filming, was a homemaker in suburban Maryland whose artistic pursuits prompted her husband to end the marriage. In 1966, she moved to Manhattan, where Rothschild interviewed her and filmed her in daily life, whether at mundane tasks or in the creation of her distinctive work—especially collages featuring her comedic photo-booth self-portraits and assemblages of domestic objects. The movie is also an inspired collage of Wilson’s joyful but tenuous social life with younger artists, her contemplative solitude, her stringent artistic self-critique, and her indignant reflections on the domestic oppressions borne by women of her generation.—Richard Brody (OVID.tv and Kanopy.)


What to Watch

Alexandra Schwartz on her favorite Shakespeare movies.

Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson in “Much Ado About Nothing.”
Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson in “Much Ado About Nothing.”Photograph from RGR Collection / Alamy

With the release of Chloé Zhao’s “Hamnet,” the Bard is back onscreen—not that he ever went away. Here is a highly subjective list of five of my favorite Shakespeare film adaptations.

Much Ado About Nothing” (1993). I grew up in the nineteen-nineties, when the names Shakespeare and Kenneth Branagh seemed inextricably entwined. Branagh’s sumptuously sun-dappled Messina remains my picture of heaven. Michael Keaton as the pompous constable Dogberry is ridiculous in the best sense, and Emma Thompson’s barbed-tongued Beatrice is a paragon performance of wit, heartbreak, and joy.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream” (1935). After the Nazis confiscated the celebrated Austrian stage director Max Reinhardt’s theatres in Germany, Reinhardt came to Hollywood and directed this masterpiece for Warner Brothers. (His fellow-emigré, William Dieterle, co-directed.) Shimmering with German Expressionist style—and reams of decorative cellophane—the film features Olivia de Havilland at the very start of her career, as Hermia, alongside James Cagney, as Bottom, and a fourteen-year-old Mickey Rooney, as Puck.

Throne of Blood” (1957). The Scottish play finds gorgeous, terrifying expression in Akira Kurosawa’s war-soaked vision of feudal Japan. Kurosawa’s black-and-white images are indelible—instead of Shakespeare’s Weird Sisters, we get an eerie old man slowly spinning a wheel with a stick—as is the sublimely ominous atmosphere. The climactic scene, in which Washizu, the Macbeth figure, played by Toshiro Mifune, is assailed by his enemies’ arrows, remains one of my favorites in all of cinema.

Chimes at Midnight” (1966). For decades, it was nearly impossible to watch Orson Welles’s tribute to Falstaff, which Welles pieced together from the “Henry” plays. That it can now be summoned up to stream in an instant is something of a miracle. Welles commits himself so deeply to Shakespeare’s most ingenious comic creation that the film has often been seen as a kind of self-portrait, filled in equal measure with delightful ribaldry and heartbreaking pathos.

10 Things I Hate About You” (1999). Did I mention that I’m a child of the nineties? Gil Junger’s rom-com manages to be both one of the best high-school comedies of an era full of them and a stellar contemporary adaptation of the very unmodern “Taming of the Shrew.” Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles, as bad boy Patrick Verona and the rebellious Kat Stratford, both got their big breaks here, and watching Ledger croon Frankie Valli’s “Can’t Take My Eyes Off You” still transmits an electric thrill.


P.S. Good stuff on the internet:

Are We Getting Stupider?

2025-12-05 20:06:02

2025-12-05T11:00:00.000Z

A couple of weeks ago, I was at the gym, exercising and musing about an upcoming column, when one of the kids from the front desk ran up to me. “Did you put a lock on a locker?” he asked. I said that I had—and instantly realized that, in a moment of inattention, I’d accidentally padlocked the locker next to the one where I’d stored my stuff. We dashed to the locker room, where a man around my age was bouncing impatiently from foot to foot. His belongings were trapped behind my lock. “Dude, I’m really late,” he said. In a fugue state of embarrassment and remorse, I squinted at my padlock; I had my contacts in, and couldn’t make out the combination. “Can you read this?” I asked him, inanely, before simply clawing my contacts out. I opened the lock, then stepped aside so that he could grab his things and bolt for the door.

I felt stupid, obviously—so stupid that, afterward, I could barely concentrate on the heavy weights I was lifting. That could have led to another stupid mistake. Thankfully, a few minutes later, my mood shifted when it occurred to me that I could use the incident to start my column. That’s how stupidity often is—causing problems, but also presenting opportunities. My stupid act had been a useful one, at least to me. To put it differently, I had discovered that I was smart enough to make something out of having been dumb.

Stupidity is surprising: this is the main idea in “A Short History of Stupidity,” by the accomplished British critic Stuart Jeffries. It’s easy to be stupid about stupidity, Jeffries argues—to assume that we know what counts as stupid and who is acting stupidly. Stupidity is, more than anything else, familiar. (Jeffries quotes Arthur Schopenhauer, who wrote that “the wise in all ages have always said the same thing, and the fools, who at all times form the immense majority, have in their way, too, acted alike, and done just the opposite; and so it will continue.”) But it’s also the case, in Jeffries’s view, that “stupidity evolves, that it mutates and thereby eludes extinction.” It’s possible to write a history of stupidity only because new kinds are always being invented.

Jeffries begins in antiquity, with the ancient Greek philosophers, who distinguished between being ignorant—which was perfectly normal, and not all that shameful—and being stupid, which involved an unwillingness to acknowledge and attempt to overcome one’s (ultimately insurmountable) cognitive and empirical limitations. A non-stupid person, from this perspective, is someone who’s open to walking a “path of self-humiliation” from unknowing ignorance to self-conscious ignorance. He might even welcome that experience, seeing it as the start of a longer journey of learning. (To maintain this good attitude, it’s helpful to remember that stupidity is often “domain-specific”: even if we’re stupid in some areas of life, Jeffries notes, we’re capable in others.)

Today, we still object to what might be called Socratic stupidity: we’re appalled, for instance, by Donald Trump going over the heads of his scientific advisers to suggest that injections of disinfectants might treat COVID. And yet many other kinds of stupidity endure. Jeffries explores “Eastern stupidity” (in his telling, Buddhists warn of the wrongheadedness that can emerge from pointless and ego-driven intellectual argument) and “Renaissance stupidity” (for Sheakespeare, “folly” could be “a mask behind which true wisdom conceals itself”).The notion “that folly, and perhaps even stupidity, are desirable” has often been “incendiary,” Jeffries writes, and yet it persists in our sense that true cleverness might involve a mixture of smarts and stupidity, the latter acting as an antidote to “the blindness of reason.”

For nineteenth-century writers like Gustave Flaubert, the concept of stupidity came to encompass the lazy drivel of cliché and received opinion; one of Flaubert’s characters says that, in mass society, “the germs of stupidity . . . spread from person to person,” and we end up becoming lemming-like followers of leaders, trends, and fads. (This “modern stupidity,” Jeffries explains, “is hastened by urbanization: the more dense a population is in one sense, the more dense it is in another.”) And the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen further innovations. We’re now conscious of the kinds of stupidity that might reveal themselves through intelligence tests or bone-headed bureaucracies; we know about “bullshit jobs” and “the banality of evil” and digital inundation. Jeffries considers a light fixture in his bedroom; it has a recessed design that’s hard to figure out, so he goes to YouTube in search of videos that might show him how to change the bulb. Modern, high-tech life is complicated. And so, yes, in a broad sense, we may very well be getting stupider—not necessarily because we’re dumber but because the ways in which we can be stupid keep multiplying.

“A Short History of Stupidity” doesn’t always engage with the question of whether the multiplication of stupidities is substantive or rhetorical. When Flaubert writes that people today are drowning in cliché and received opinion, is he right? Is it actually true that, before newspapers, individuals held more diverse and original views? That seems unlikely. The general trend, over the past few hundred years, has been toward more education for more people. Flaubert may very well have been exposed to more stupid thoughts, but this could have reflected the fact that more thoughts were being shared.

Arguably, by railing against the stupidity of cliché, Flaubert was actually practicing a form of self-humiliation—that is, he was asking himself whether he agreed with the clichés, and so goading himself, and us, into being non-stupid. In his satirical “Dictionary of Received Ideas,” written in the eighteen-seventies, Flaubert offered up a range of definitions embodying the stupid notions that silly people too readily accept. (Jeffries likes “Art”: “Leads to poorhouse. What use is it, since machines can do things better and quicker?” My wife and I always laugh about “Bird”: “Wish you were one, saying with a sigh: ‘Oh, for a pair of wings!’ This shows you have a poetic soul.”) It’s natural for such thoughts to occur to us—“Stupidity is the product of the groups and societies in which we are raised,” Jeffries explains, referencing the philosopher Sacha Golob. By mocking these thoughts, we push ourselves past them. From this perspective, our sense that we’re getting stupider may simply reflect our determination to be smart.

And yet, it seems undeniable that something is out of joint in our collective intellectual life. The current political situation makes this “a good time to write about stupidity,” Jeffries writes. When he notes that a central trait of stupidity is that it “can be relied upon to do the one thing expressly designed not to achieve the desired result”—or “to laughably mismatch means and ends”—he makes “stupid” seem like the perfect way to characterize our era, in which many people think that the key to making America healthy again is ending vaccination. Meanwhile, in a recent issue of New York magazine—“The Stupid Issue”—the journalist Andrew Rice describes troubling and widespread declines in the abilities of high-school students to perform basic tasks, such as calculating a tip on a restaurant check. These declines are happening even in well-funded school districts, and they’re part of a larger academic pattern, in which literacy is fading and standards are slipping.

Maybe we are getting stupider. Still, one of the problems with the discourse of stupidity is that it can feel reductive, aggressive, even abusive. Self-humiliation is still humiliating; when we call one another stupid, we spread humiliation around, whether our accusation is just or unjust. In a recent post on Substack, the philosopher Joseph Heath suggested that populism might be best understood as a revolt against “the cognitive elite”—that is, against the people who demand that we check our intuitions and think more deliberately about pretty much everything. According to this theory, the world constructed by the cognitive élite is one in which you have to listen to experts, and keep up with technology, and click through six pages of online forms to buy a movie ticket; it sometimes “requires the typical person, while speaking, to actively suppress the familiar word that is primed (e.g. ‘homeless’), and to substitute through explicit cognition the recently-minted word that is now favoured (e.g. ‘unhoused’).” The cognitive élites are right to say that people who think about things intuitively are often wrong; on issues including crime and immigration, the truth is counterintuitive. (Legal procedures are better than rough justice; immigrants increase both the supply and the demand for labor.) But the result of this has been that unreasonable people have hooked up to form an opposition party. What’s the way out of this death spiral? No one knows.

In 1970, a dead sperm whale washed up on the beach in Florence, Oregon. It was huge, and no one knew how to dispose of it. Eventually, the state’s Highway Division, which was in charge of the operation, hit upon the idea of blowing the carcass up with dynamite. They planted half a ton of explosives—that’s a lot!—on the leeward side of the whale, figuring that what wasn’t blown out to sea would disintegrate into bits small enough to be consumed by crabs and seagulls. Onlookers gathered to watch the explosion. It failed to destroy the whale, and instead created a dangerous hailstorm of putrid whale fragments. “I realized blubber was hitting around us,” Paul Linnman, a reporter on the scene, told Popular Mechanics magazine. “Blubber is so dense, a piece the size of your fingertip can go through your head. As we started to run down [the] trail, we heard a second explosion in our direction, and we saw blubber the size of a coffee table flatten a car.” (The video of the incident—which was first popularized by Dave Barry, after he wrote about it in 1990—is a treasure of the internet, and benefits from Linnman’s deadpan TV-news narration.)

There can be joy and humor in stupidity—think fail videos, reality television, and “Dumb and Dumber.” It doesn’t have to be mean-spirited, either. The town of Florence now boasts an outdoor space called Exploding Whale Memorial Park; last year, after a weeklong celebration leading up to Exploding Whale Day, people gathered there in costume. Watching the original video, I find myself empathizing with the engineer who conceived the dynamite plan. I’ve been there. To err is human. Intelligent people sometimes do stupid things. We all blow up a whale from time to time; the important point is not to do it again.

And yet stupidity, sadly, isn’t always so straightforward. It’s a concept that demands nuance. In order to be smart, we need to be aware of our own stupidness—to be reminded that we have much to learn. At the same time, we don’t want to feel so stupid that we give up, or grow cynical, or become disillusioned about what counts as “smart.” Similarly, navigating the world effectively requires discerning stupidity in others—but living together involves understanding that stupidity is inevitable and context-dependent. There’s some ideal degree of stupidity-consciousness—some measured amount that protects us from hubris while urging us forward. Achieving it isn’t easy. ♦

War Is Peace, the Dozing Don Edition

2025-12-05 09:06:03

2025-12-05T00:37:11.414Z

Just after 1 P.M. on Thursday, Donald Trump appeared at the newly renamed Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, in Washington, D.C., to preside over a signing ceremony with the Presidents of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Trump praised the two leaders for having the courage to put their names on the “very detailed, powerful agreement” to end the decades-long conflict between their countries—and praised himself for “succeeding where so many others have failed” in brokering a deal. When another attendee, Kenya’s President, William Ruto, hailed Trump’s “consequential” and “historic” and “bold leadership,” Trump stood beside him, looking pleased as could be. At the end of the ceremony, Trump took a single question from a journalist, who suggested, consistent with reports from the region, that fighting in eastern Congo had escalated in the runup to the summit and that peace was not really possible until troops actually withdrew. Not to worry, the President insisted: “It’s going to be a great miracle.”

Setting aside the question of whether Trump could identify either African nation on a map, or the dubious math behind his claim to have personally ended eight wars, the photo op had an are-you-kidding-me quality that only he could inspire. For starters, there was the awkward fact that a President famous for deriding African nations as “shithole countries” was hosting an array of leaders from the continent—not only from Rwanda, the D.R.C., and Kenya but also from Angola, Burundi, and elsewhere—just days after unleashing a bigoted rant branding all immigrants from Somalia as “garbage” and declaring they were not wanted in the United States.

There was also the matter of where the ceremony took place—at the congressionally chartered, independent think tank dedicated to fostering peace around the world that Trump had shuttered earlier this year. When the institute’s staff resisted, the Administration fired most of them and staged an armed takeover, which was later ruled a “gross usurpation of power” by a federal judge. None of which stopped the State Department from announcing, late on Wednesday, that it had renamed the institute for Trump, or from affixing his name in giant silver letters to the building’s façade in preparation for Thursday’s ceremony. “Thank you for putting a certain name on that building,” Trump said as his guests looked on. “That’s a great honor. It really is.”

As for the timing of the event, our self-styled “President of PEACE” held it in the midst of a full-blown Washington scandal over the conduct of his newly renamed Department of War and the former TV host who leads it, Pete Hegseth. In the hours before Trump’s photo op, a congressional committee met behind closed doors to review footage of a U.S. military strike on an alleged drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean, in September, which included a follow-on attack to blow up two survivors of the initial salvo—a possible war crime that, according to the Washington Post, resulted from Hegseth’s verbal order to kill them all. (Hegseth and the White House have both denied that Hegseth gave the order.) After viewing the video, Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called it “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”

To be clear: that September attack was no isolated incident. Trump has now ordered more than twenty deadly strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats from Venezuela, killing an estimated eighty-three people. His Administration has yet to release the legal justification that the Pentagon is relying on for the strikes, or evidence to support its claims that those killed were, in fact, drug traffickers. Even if they were—as the Republican congressman Mike Turner, of Ohio, the former chair of the Intelligence Committee, pointed out on Thursday morning—drug dealing is not subject to the penalty of extrajudicial death by missile. Although the killing of two defenseless men left floating in the water during the September strike has created a sensation in the days since the Post’s scoop, the entire military campaign itself is an outrage. “Focusing on the shipwrecked is a distraction insofar as it suggests everything else preceding and after that strike was all legitimate,” Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University and former Pentagon lawyer, told the Times. “Even under a law of armed conflict, they were all civilians, and we are not actually in armed conflict. Either way, it was all murder.”

Nonetheless, Trump escalated his undeclared war, threatening to oust the government of Venezuela’s President, Nicolás Maduro, writing on social media that the airspace over the country was “CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY” and warning that land-based strikes could begin “very soon.”

All of which is entirely consistent with the unilateral exercise of war-making powers that has been a hallmark of Trump’s second term. While the President has chased glory for settling other countries’ conflicts, since retaking office in January, he has carried out strikes in Iran, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. He’s called American cities “war zones” and sent in the military to crack down on phantom crime waves over the opposition of elected leaders.

It’s quite a trick for Trump to both claim credit for ending wars that are not actually over while initiating new ones that have no legal justification, aside from Trump’s belief that he, and he alone, gets to decide what qualifies as an emergency worthy of sending in the troops. On Monday—at the same moment that the U.S. is meting out the death penalty to a bunch of guys in speedboats, who may or may not be drug traffickers, and threatening to depose the President of Venezuela for his links to the guys in boats which he may or may not have—the former President of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted by the Justice Department last year for drug trafficking on a truly epic scale, walked free thanks to a pardon from Trump. “Why would we pardon this guy and then go after Maduro for running drugs into the United States?” Bill Cassidy, a Republican senator from Louisiana, asked. Good question. Is this the long-awaited Trump Doctrine?

Of course, there’s always been an impressive gap between Trump’s self-perception and how others see him. By his standards, standing before the world as a peacemaker while waging an undeclared and largely unexplained war is hardly the boldest contradiction that Trump asks us to swallow. And yet a remarkable aspect of his remarkable decade in politics has been his ability to persuade millions of Americans to believe in even his most egregious acts of misrepresentation.

I couldn’t help but think of this while watching what was surely the most memorable of Trump’s appearances this week—his on-camera nap while his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, lavished praise on his peacemaking efforts. “On all these things, Mr. President, I think you deserve tremendous credit,” Rubio said. When Rubio mentioned the “transformational aspect of our foreign policy,” Trump briefly stirred, before leaning back in his chair and shutting his eyes once again.

The images of Dozing Don, “the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history,” as Rubio’s State Department called him this week, must surely become iconic. It was only a few minutes into Tuesday’s nearly three-hour Cabinet meeting, after all, when Trump had made his obligatory reference contrasting himself to his predecessor, “Sleepy Joe” Biden, the oldest, low-energy-est, worstest President ever. Trump’s core pitch to his followers has always been all about his strength, power, and energy—his willingness to fight for them, no matter what. Will he still command their loyalty as his vigor fades before their eyes? Is there a point at which the contradiction between his self-image and what we will see is simply too great to be sustained? With a President pushing eighty, the difference between Trump’s reality and reality-reality is only going to get wider.

Perhaps his sagging poll numbers and the incipient signs of rebellion among certain Republican members of Congress who are not all that eager to endorse war crimes in a war they have not authorized will prompt Trump to wake up and rethink at least some of his erroneous ways. But don’t bet on it. Whether he’s wide awake or fast asleep, he will still be surrounded by industrial-strength sycophants such as Rubio, who appear to have no problem slapping his name on buildings and praising him no matter what he does. How long can it be until they are feting this great peacemaker of ours for his grand victory in the Battle of the Caribbean, a glittering event to be held, no doubt, in the Donald J. Trump Ballroom, on the grounds of the Donald J. Trump Executive Compound? ♦